8 ms·

The US fundamentally wants the oil to flow globally. Its secondary blockade of the Strait seems to be driven by optics and PR rather than strategic value.

by jchook 4mo ago

dmix 4mo ago
It's a pressure campaign to get a nuclear deal. NYT reported Iran already offered to open the strait, end hostilities, and negotiate a nuclear deal later, but the US rejected that offer as they want to pressure them into giving up their uranium. Now Iran is demanding money in exchange for the uranium which is the primary roadblock.
- esalman 4mo ago
  It's a pressure campaign to get the Iranian leadership in one place so that Israel can bomb them again. There was a deal, the president cancelled it in his previous term.
  - deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
- antman 4mo ago
  Nobody credible said or believed Iran was making nuclear weapons. Iran had made it a fatwa against the Islamic law to develop such weapons and Obama had referenced that. They also dont believe bolivian fishermen could reach the US with stocks of drugs, they dont believe venezuela’s president was a hidden drug kingpin, and they also dont believe that Cuba is a credible threat that needs to be blockaded to the stone age. These are power plays to signal that world dominance is not decaying but in case of Iran it has backfired and pushes China’s narrative as a pillar of stability.
  - dmix 4mo ago
    There is still lots of evidence that Iran started enriching uranium towards weapons grade over the past decade. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-64810145 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-64810145 Largely a legacy of Trump's sanctions failing to get a nuclear deal the first term and back firing. You'd have to be naive to think they don't want a bomb in the first place before that though. Saddam played the same game where they pretended they just wanted nuclear for energy, even though they were a petrol state... which is why in 1981 Iran helped bomb Iraq's reactors (where Iran teamed up with Israel to do so) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera If Iran didn't believe Iraq's peaceful nuclear intentions, I'm not sure why anyone would believe Iran then buying tons of uranium from Russia was any different. Not to mention building underground lairs to enrich it while also building ICBMs.
    - nixon_why69 4mo ago
      The best way to thread the needle I can see was that maintaining highly enriched uranium was a deterrance/bargaining strategy. Doesn't break the fatwa but sends a message. Obviously it wasn't successful, they should have either built a bomb or not bothered, in hindsight.
      - overfeed 4mo ago
        > Obviously it wasn't successful, they should have either built a bomb or not bothered, in hindsight. The JCPOA obviated the need for a nuke. It was a reasonable assumption that the US would honor its side of the agreement under the doctrine of continuity. Even in hindsight, you cannot have productive diplomacy without good faith
        jameshilliard 4mo ago
        > The JCPOA obviated the need for a nuke. Iran really had no need for a nuke in the first place if they weren't constantly provoking the entire region, unless that need is destroying Israel. > Even in hindsight, you cannot have productive diplomacy without good faith Iran never really negotiates in good faith either, the JCPOA didn't really do anything at all to restrict their ballistic missile program and terrorist proxies.
      - jameshilliard 4mo ago
        > Doesn't break the fatwa but sends a message. Obviously it wasn't successful, they should have either built a bomb or not bothered, in hindsight. I think Israel and probably the US interpreted this tactic as Iran stalling until they Iran had the technology to build a nuclear ICBM.
  - simianparrot 4mo ago
    [flagged]
    - cwillu 4mo ago
      Your source doesn't contradict anything he said. “This stockpile could potentially enable Iran to construct as many as 10 nuclear bombs, should it choose to weaponize its program, Grossi told The Associated Press last year.”
      - simianparrot 4mo ago
        There is no other reason to have uranium enriched to that level. None.
        cwillu 4mo ago
        Your ignorance does not an argument make.
  - UltraSane 4mo ago
    Many countries have nuclear power without any enrichment capability. Iran could try not being a pariah state and buy enriched uranium like many countries do. The only real reason to spend so much money and endure so much hardships for uranium enrichment is if they wanted at least the option to make nuclear weapons.
    - solumunus 4mo ago
      They definitely wanted the option, that’s indisputable really.
  - alsetmusic 4mo ago
    The strongest case for developing nuclear weapons is our lack of invasions of nuclear powers. It's funny how he tore up a nuclear arms embargo / agreement and then acted as though they (Iran) were a threat that couldn't be tolerated. Common saying: "They sell us the sickness and then sell us the cure."
    - expedition32 4mo ago
      Nuclear weapons have been a strictly self defense capability since 1945 I don't know why the White House is crying about Iran getting them.
      - solumunus 4mo ago
        Because Iran is an extremist theocracy who literally regards USA as Satan and openly calls for its destruction. Pretty obvious.
        pelorat 4mo ago
        "Satan" as in the original meaning of the word "adversary of god". They are not calling you Satan as a way to say evil, but as a way to say "adversary of our faith".
      - jameshilliard 4mo ago
        > I don't know why the White House is crying about Iran getting them. How does one not see a problem with terrorists(i.e. the Islamic regime in Iran) getting nuclear weapons?
        handfuloflight 4mo ago
        After you say why you don't have a problem with the Israeli terrorists having them already.
        jameshilliard 4mo ago
  - jameshilliard 4mo ago
    > Nobody credible said or believed Iran was making nuclear weapons. Then why were they enriching uranium to levels well above what is needed for civilian purposes? You simply don't do that unless you intend to make nuclear weapons at some point. > Iran had made it a fatwa against the Islamic law to develop such weapons and Obama had referenced that. Iran obviously has the ability to lie, and regularly does so.
- sharts 4mo ago
  Is NYT even a credible source these days?
  - khriss 4mo ago
    As opposed to the orange clown who changes his stance daily and sometimes hourly? Yeah, of course.
    - don_esteban 4mo ago
      as opposed to media that don't tow the official US foreign policy line, and don't uncritically parrot the official US narrative?
  - 21asdffdsa12 4mo ago
    Anything that got us into this mess should be questioned.
  - tim333 4mo ago
    They don't seem that bad. Trump shouting fake news whenever they say something he's not keen on doesn't necessarily make them non credible. Looking on Wikipedia for NYT controversies it has them saying killing Palestinians may be bad and saying sex change ops for kids may be bad which don't seem especially terrible positions.
- hersko 4mo ago
  > Nobody credible said or believed Iran was making nuclear weapons. Tell that to Iran's former parliamentary deputy speaker who said 'When we began our nuclear activity, our goal was indeed to build a bomb. There is no need to beat around the bush.'[1] [1] https://www.dailymail.com/sciencetech/article-15732615/iran-nuclear-bomb-confession-ali-motahari.html https://www.dailymail.com/sciencetech/article-15732615/iran-...
- cnd78A 4mo ago
  to be fair, I bet more human knows that USA is much more dangerous to the world "order" than Iran having a nuclear weapon (Pakistan and even Israel has it, so why not Iran and Mozambic too?)
  - dmix 4mo ago
    > so why not Iran and Mozambic too? Iran funds terrorism and conflict that impacts nearly every Muslim country around them and also in US, europe, canada, australia etc If you want to build a bomb for sovereignty's sake, don't become an international pariah that openly and explicitly attacks wealthier and democratic world powers while you're doing it. Iran's has demonstrated some of the worst strategic planning over the past two decades. Their economic planning has been just as bad
pjc50 4mo ago
No, they don't: they want allied (UAE, Saudi) oil to flow, but not Iranian oil. The US is embargoing most of the Far East from essential fuel.

The US fundamentally wants the oil to flow globally. Its secondary blockade of the Strait seems to be driven by optics and PR rather than strategic value.

by jchook 4mo ago

The US fundamentally wants the oil to flow globally. Its secondary blockade of the Strait seems to be driven by optics and PR rather than strategic value.

dmix 4mo ago

It's a pressure campaign to get a nuclear deal. NYT reported Iran already offered to open the strait, end hostilities, and negotiate a nuclear deal later, but the US rejected that offer as they want to pressure them into giving up their uranium. Now Iran is demanding money in exchange for the uranium which is the primary roadblock.

esalman 4mo ago
It's a pressure campaign to get the Iranian leadership in one place so that Israel can bomb them again. There was a deal, the president cancelled it in his previous term.
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
antman 4mo ago
Nobody credible said or believed Iran was making nuclear weapons. Iran had made it a fatwa against the Islamic law to develop such weapons and Obama had referenced that. They also dont believe bolivian fishermen could reach the US with stocks of drugs, they dont believe venezuela’s president was a hidden drug kingpin, and they also dont believe that Cuba is a credible threat that needs to be blockaded to the stone age. These are power plays to signal that world dominance is not decaying but in case of Iran it has backfired and pushes China’s narrative as a pillar of stability.
- dmix 4mo ago
  There is still lots of evidence that Iran started enriching uranium towards weapons grade over the past decade. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-64810145 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-64810145 Largely a legacy of Trump's sanctions failing to get a nuclear deal the first term and back firing. You'd have to be naive to think they don't want a bomb in the first place before that though. Saddam played the same game where they pretended they just wanted nuclear for energy, even though they were a petrol state... which is why in 1981 Iran helped bomb Iraq's reactors (where Iran teamed up with Israel to do so) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera If Iran didn't believe Iraq's peaceful nuclear intentions, I'm not sure why anyone would believe Iran then buying tons of uranium from Russia was any different. Not to mention building underground lairs to enrich it while also building ICBMs.
  - nixon_why69 4mo ago
    The best way to thread the needle I can see was that maintaining highly enriched uranium was a deterrance/bargaining strategy. Doesn't break the fatwa but sends a message. Obviously it wasn't successful, they should have either built a bomb or not bothered, in hindsight.
    - overfeed 4mo ago
      > Obviously it wasn't successful, they should have either built a bomb or not bothered, in hindsight. The JCPOA obviated the need for a nuke. It was a reasonable assumption that the US would honor its side of the agreement under the doctrine of continuity. Even in hindsight, you cannot have productive diplomacy without good faith
      - jameshilliard 4mo ago
        > The JCPOA obviated the need for a nuke. Iran really had no need for a nuke in the first place if they weren't constantly provoking the entire region, unless that need is destroying Israel. > Even in hindsight, you cannot have productive diplomacy without good faith Iran never really negotiates in good faith either, the JCPOA didn't really do anything at all to restrict their ballistic missile program and terrorist proxies.
    - jameshilliard 4mo ago
      > Doesn't break the fatwa but sends a message. Obviously it wasn't successful, they should have either built a bomb or not bothered, in hindsight. I think Israel and probably the US interpreted this tactic as Iran stalling until they Iran had the technology to build a nuclear ICBM.
- simianparrot 4mo ago
  [flagged]
  - cwillu 4mo ago
    Your source doesn't contradict anything he said. “This stockpile could potentially enable Iran to construct as many as 10 nuclear bombs, should it choose to weaponize its program, Grossi told The Associated Press last year.”
    - simianparrot 4mo ago
      There is no other reason to have uranium enriched to that level. None.
      - cwillu 4mo ago
        Your ignorance does not an argument make.
- UltraSane 4mo ago
  Many countries have nuclear power without any enrichment capability. Iran could try not being a pariah state and buy enriched uranium like many countries do. The only real reason to spend so much money and endure so much hardships for uranium enrichment is if they wanted at least the option to make nuclear weapons.
  - solumunus 4mo ago
    They definitely wanted the option, that’s indisputable really.
- alsetmusic 4mo ago
  The strongest case for developing nuclear weapons is our lack of invasions of nuclear powers. It's funny how he tore up a nuclear arms embargo / agreement and then acted as though they (Iran) were a threat that couldn't be tolerated. Common saying: "They sell us the sickness and then sell us the cure."
  - expedition32 4mo ago
    Nuclear weapons have been a strictly self defense capability since 1945 I don't know why the White House is crying about Iran getting them.
    - solumunus 4mo ago
      Because Iran is an extremist theocracy who literally regards USA as Satan and openly calls for its destruction. Pretty obvious.
      - pelorat 4mo ago
        "Satan" as in the original meaning of the word "adversary of god". They are not calling you Satan as a way to say evil, but as a way to say "adversary of our faith".
    - jameshilliard 4mo ago
      > I don't know why the White House is crying about Iran getting them. How does one not see a problem with terrorists(i.e. the Islamic regime in Iran) getting nuclear weapons?
      - handfuloflight 4mo ago
        After you say why you don't have a problem with the Israeli terrorists having them already.
        jameshilliard 4mo ago
- jameshilliard 4mo ago
  > Nobody credible said or believed Iran was making nuclear weapons. Then why were they enriching uranium to levels well above what is needed for civilian purposes? You simply don't do that unless you intend to make nuclear weapons at some point. > Iran had made it a fatwa against the Islamic law to develop such weapons and Obama had referenced that. Iran obviously has the ability to lie, and regularly does so.
sharts 4mo ago
Is NYT even a credible source these days?
- khriss 4mo ago
  As opposed to the orange clown who changes his stance daily and sometimes hourly? Yeah, of course.
  - don_esteban 4mo ago
    as opposed to media that don't tow the official US foreign policy line, and don't uncritically parrot the official US narrative?
- 21asdffdsa12 4mo ago
  Anything that got us into this mess should be questioned.
- tim333 4mo ago
  They don't seem that bad. Trump shouting fake news whenever they say something he's not keen on doesn't necessarily make them non credible. Looking on Wikipedia for NYT controversies it has them saying killing Palestinians may be bad and saying sex change ops for kids may be bad which don't seem especially terrible positions.
hersko 4mo ago
> Nobody credible said or believed Iran was making nuclear weapons. Tell that to Iran's former parliamentary deputy speaker who said 'When we began our nuclear activity, our goal was indeed to build a bomb. There is no need to beat around the bush.'[1] [1] https://www.dailymail.com/sciencetech/article-15732615/iran-nuclear-bomb-confession-ali-motahari.html https://www.dailymail.com/sciencetech/article-15732615/iran-...
cnd78A 4mo ago
to be fair, I bet more human knows that USA is much more dangerous to the world "order" than Iran having a nuclear weapon (Pakistan and even Israel has it, so why not Iran and Mozambic too?)
- dmix 4mo ago
  > so why not Iran and Mozambic too? Iran funds terrorism and conflict that impacts nearly every Muslim country around them and also in US, europe, canada, australia etc If you want to build a bomb for sovereignty's sake, don't become an international pariah that openly and explicitly attacks wealthier and democratic world powers while you're doing it. Iran's has demonstrated some of the worst strategic planning over the past two decades. Their economic planning has been just as bad

pjc50 4mo ago

No, they don't: they want allied (UAE, Saudi) oil to flow, but not Iranian oil. The US is embargoing most of the Far East from essential fuel.